Vibrations in engineering and technology

Vyhovsky Andriy PhD of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Education and Research Institute of Forestry and Landscape-Park Management, 03041, 19 Horikhuvatskyi Shliakh Str., Kyiv, Ukraine, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-0430

Pankiv Maria Dr of Technical Sciences, Professor, Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University, Ruska str., 56, Ternopil, Ukraine, Department of Mechanical Engineering Technologies, 46025, 56 Ruska str., Ternopil, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9433-6714 

This review, based on an analysis of the current state of domestic forestry science and machine building, highlights the prospects for expanding the production and use of tracked forestry machines in logging and forest management operations. The advantages and disadvantages of wheeled and tracked platforms for forestry machinery are considered from the standpoint of operational and environmental performance, including their suitability for use in forests located on slopes. The aim of the study is to substantiate promising directions for the development of research in the field of improving tracked forestry machines and to justify their advantages over wheeled forestry machines. Therefore, a comparative analysis of wheeled and tracked forestry machines is both relevant and timely. This analysis demonstrates that a tracked undercarriage provides significant advantages over wheeled platforms and represents a promising direction for planning the future development of forestry machinery. It is shown that domestically produced tracked forestry machines have considerable potential for widespread application in forestry and logging operations. Compared with wheeled machines, these units are significantly more environmentally friendly and substantially cheaper to manufacture and operate. Numerous scientific publications allow an unambiguous conclusion that, without the use of additional technical means and technological solutions, the environmental compatibility of tracked propulsion systems (under otherwise equal conditions) is noticeably higher than that of wheeled systems. To reduce ground pressure on forest soils (by increasing the contact area with the running surface) and to improve passability, modern tracked forestry machines (harvesters based on excavator platforms) are equipped with widened track belts with a reduced number of grousers. Compared with modern wheeled forestry machines, tracked tractors have a significantly simpler transmission design and maintenance system, which is considerably less demanding in terms of maintenance quality and compliance with service intervals. Owing to their much simpler design, it is also possible to use components and assemblies from other similar types of transport machinery. The necessity for regulatory standardisation of the impact of forestry machines on soil is justified by the following indicators: permissible ground pressure; rut depth formed; and the degree of soil compaction.

1.  Wang, P., Pan, K., Yuan, J., Pan, S., Yang, Y. (2025). A review of research on hybrid unmanned vehicles in complex forest and grassland terrains. Journal of Forest Science, 71, 525–541. doi: https://doi.org/10.17221/65/2025-JFS.

2. Karasev, Y.A., Markov, V.A., Dmitriev, A.S., Dolzhikov, I.S., & Yudilevich, A. M. (2023). Prospects for further research on the improvement of tracked forest vehicles. Resources and Technology, 20, 1, 42–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.15393/j2.art.2023.6703

3. Uusitalo, J. (2010). Introduction to Forest Operations and Technology. Helsinki: JVP Forest Systems

4. Ackerman, P., Gleasure, E., Ackerman, S. (2019). Advances in forest engineering technologies. Int. J. Forest Engineering, 30(2), 85-97.

5. Hertz, E., Guriev, A., Druzyanova, V., Revyako, S., Markov, O., & Perfiliev, P. (2024). Impact Assessment of Different Propulsion Systems in Forestry Machinery on Soil Properties Modelling, Measurement and Control B: Concrete and Industrial Materials, 11, 1, Jan 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.110114.

6. Spinelli, R., Magagnotti, N. (2011). The effect of soil strength on rutting caused by forest operations. Journal of Terramechanics, 48(4), 305-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2011.06.005.

7. Eriksson, M., Lindroos, O. (2014). Productivity of forest machines in varying terrain conditions. Int. J. Forest Engineering, 25(3), 221-234.https://www.formec.org/images/proceedings/2015/formec_proceedings_2015_web.pdf

8. Kormanek, M., Dvořák, J., Tylek, P., Jankovský, M., Nuhlíček, O., & Mateusiak, Ł. (2023). Impact of MHT9002HV tracked harvester on forest soil after logging in steeply sloping terrain. Forests, 14(5), 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050977.

9. Visser, R., Stampfer, K. (2015). Expanding ground-based harvesting onto difficult terrain. FERIC Journal, 17(1), 1-12. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/52966/1.0376466/5.

10. Ziesak, M., Schmitt, J. (2018). Tracked versus wheeled forest machines: a comparison. J. Cleaner Production, 172, 3499-350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.137.

11.  Shapiro, V.Y., Grigor’ev, I.V., Savchenko, S.I., Tikhonov, E.A., Revyako, S.I., & Perfil’ev, P.N. (2025). The effect of maneuvering the propulsion of a wheeled forestry vehicle on its maneuverability in difficult geotechnical conditions. Forestry Engineering Journal, 15, 3, 228–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.34220/issn.2222-7962/2025.3/15

12. Labelle, E.R., Jaeger, D. (2011). Quantifying soil disturbance caused by forest machines. Eur. J. Forest Research, 130(4), 593-606. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-011-0467-7.

13. Siebert, I., Klaes, B., Schneider, R., & Thiele-Bruhn, S. (2026). A portable matting system mitigates soil disturbance caused by a mini forestry crawler. Soil and Tillage Research, 256, 106829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2025.106829

14. Boston, K., Sessions, J. (2006). Development of ground-based harvesting systems. Forest Science, 52(4), 405-413.

15. Saarinen, M. (2020). Predicting rut depth induced by an 8-wheeled forwarder in boreal forest soils. Ann. Forest Science, 77, 42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-00948-y. 

16. Koger, J. (2018). Role of equipment passes in soil compaction during forest operations. Int. J. Forest Engineering, 29, 45–57 No DOI available.

17. Kalyashov, V.A., Do, T.A., Hitrov, E.G., Savchenko, S.I., Tikhonov, E.A., Revyako, S.I. (2022). Modern systems of machinery and technologies for timber harvesting and reforestation in mountain forests. Resources and Technology, 19(2), 1-47. 

18. Greacen, E.L., Sands, R. (2015). Compaction of forest soil and recovery pathways. Forest Ecology and Management, 50, 23-29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246549006_Soil_compaction_in_forest_soils

19. Williamson, J.B., Neilsen, W.A. (2015). Soil compaction and depth distribution after forestry machine passes. Forest Ecology and Management, 214, 159-167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.015.

20. Siegel-Issem, K. (2018). Influence of forest machine traffic on soil physical parameters. Soil Science Society, 79, 305-314. https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122535/records/65df3be40f3e94b9e5d65488

21. Lee, H., Wiersema, B., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S. (2020). Soil porosity changes after forestry operations. J. Environmental Quality, 49, 1111-1122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20052. 

22. Solgi, E. (2019). Distribution of soil compaction between and inside wheel tracks. Forest Soil Science, 22, 68-80. https://hau.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/17769/1/Rayhan%20Shaheb%20upload.pdf

23. Bottinelli, N., Banerjee, S., & van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2019). Long-term soil recovery after forestry machine traffic. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 127, 123–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.10.017.

24. Frey, B. (2019). Soil erosion linked to rutting and compaction in forest sites. Land Degradation & Development, 30, 98-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3227.

25. Parkhurst, J., et al. (2022). Dynamic impact of wheeled skidders on soil compaction. J. Terramechanics, 101, 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2022.02.001.

26. Bygdén, R. (2018). Tracked wheels in forest forwarding reduce rut depth and compaction. Forest Products Journal, 71, 42-50. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6412.

27. Burger, P.R. (2021). Rut depth and soil disturbance modelling in forest operations. Forest Soil Science, 39, 179-190. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c1c6cf05-19ec-4904-a150-639de8099cc3/content.

28. Agherkakli, B., Najafi, A, Sadeghi, S.H. (2010). Rutting in steep terrain: slope effects on forestry machine impacts. Int. J. Forest Engineering, 26, 65-78. doi: 10.17221/93/2009-JFS. A. 

29. Ampoorter, E., Barbaro L, Jactel H, (2016). Bulk density changes around forestry machine tracks. Geoderma, 270, 1-11. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03329696v1/file/2020_GANAULT_archivage.pdf

30. Burger, P.R., Sutherland, R.A. (2000). Soil displacement during ground-based mechanized forest operations. Soil & Tillage Research, 54, 107-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00097-3.

31. Craig, R.F. (2012). Soil Mechanics, 7th Ed. London: Spon Press. 

32. Sutherland, R.A. (2003). Mechanisms of rut formation in forestry soils. Journal of Terramechanics, 39, 109-119. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/1/74.

33. Abebe, A.T., Tanaka, T., Yamazaki, M. (2019). Soil compaction from rigid wheel passes and its optimisation. Journal of Terramechanics, 26, 139-148 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4898(89)90003-7. 

34. Liu, W., et al. (2010). Effects of turning on machine-induced soil impact. Soil & Tillage Research, 108, 30-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.01.002

35. Ala-Ilomäki, J., Salmivaara, A., Launiainen, S., et al. (2020). Assessing forest trafficability using soil moisture models. Forests, 11(3), 346. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/3/346

36. Ampoorter, E., Barbaro L, Jactel H, (2016). Bulk density changes around forestry machine tracks. Geoderma, 270, 1-11. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03329696v1/file/2020_GANAULT_archivage.pdf.

37. Bagheri, R. (2019). Soil vulnerability to erosion after forestry machine traffic. Catena, 178, 193-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.04.027.

38. Cambi, M., Certini, G., Neri, F., Marchi, E. (2015). The impact of heavy traffic on forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management, 338, 124-138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.022.

39. Heninger, R., Jones, T.A., Daniels, L.D., Powell, S.R. (2002). Soil disturbance from forest machine turning and manoeuvring. Can. J. Forest Res., 32, 902-912. doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-051.

40. Horn, R., Fleige, H. (2003). Soil mechanical properties and traffic-induced compaction. Soil & Tillage Research, 73(1-2), 89-99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00099-X.

41. Horn, R., et al. (2008). Soil properties and forest machine traffic – implications for rutting. Soil & Tillage Research, 98, 45-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.10.007. 

42. Labelle, E.R., Jaeger, D. (2012). Soil compaction caused by tracked vs wheeled machines. Int. J. Forest Engineering, 23(2), 115-127. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/3/336. 

43. Marra, A., Laschi, A., Fabiano, F., Foderi, C., Neri, F., Mastrolonardo, G., Nordfjell, T., March, E. (2022). Impacts of wood extraction on soil: rutting and soil compaction from forwarding and skidding. Eur. J. Forest Research, 141, 71-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-021-01420-w.

44. McCallum, B.T. (2017). Effects of tyre slip and terrain on forest soil compaction. Forest Engineering Journal, 17, 123–134. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/3/336.

45. Moilanen, M., Hökkä, H. (2013). Impact of heavy machinery on peat soils. Forest Ecology and Management, 307, 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.049.

46. Nazari, M. (2018). Meta-analysis of soil disturbance from heavy machinery in forest environments. Forest Ecology and Management, 425, 135-146. 

47. Owende, P.M.O., Ward, S.M., Holden, N.M. (2002). Minimising environmental impacts of forest harvesting. Biosystems Engineering, 83(3), 271-282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/bioe.2002.0036.